Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wages have been stagnant over the entire decade and they are now declining. Furthermore, the working-class not only have declining wages but also very high unemployment rates. The working-class/middle-class are slowly sinking while the top 5% or so keep getting wealthier.
But the overall quality of life for all has improved IMO. Poor people in this country have cars, cell phones, cable TV etc. Seriously, the poor in this country live better than the poor anywhere else I've ever seen.
Btw, are you denying that social/income mobility exists to get to the top of the heap? It's pretty well-documented among immigrant groups that subsequent generations do better than their parents when they first come over here. That's the american dream.
The data simply does not support the claim that high marginal tax rates reduce business formation. For anybody that understands business the reason is pretty simple, individuals that own businesses gain most of their wealth via capital gains not income/dividends.
I won't argue with that, although I would argue that early on, income tax rates do play an important role. In addition, small businesses that form S-corps have to deal with ordinary income taxes.
It's funny that the US has taken such a negative stance towards capital gains in recent years, while other countries continue to keep CG tax rates relatively low. The new medicare tax will push the Long-term rate to 23.4% starting in 2013 (after it goes to 20% next year).
Do you want high taxes on high income wage earners because it is the most efficient tax or because you don't feel people deserve high incomes?
I'm not sure what it means for a tax to be "efficient", but my reasons for supporting high marginal taxes are social. Once people start making around $300k (I forget the exact number), a large portion of their money is not coming from earned income but rather passive income from rents on their capital and/or real estate. Yet the value of this capital/real estate is based on the community as a whole, so high marginal tax rates allow one to redistribute these gains throughout the community.
I'm not sure what it means for a tax to be "efficient", but my reasons for supporting high marginal taxes are social. Once people start making around $300k (I forget the exact number), a large portion of their money is not coming from earned income but rather passive income from rents on their capital and/or real estate. Yet the value of this capital/real estate is based on the community as a whole, so high marginal tax rates allow one to redistribute these gains throughout the community.
So you assume that the government is a better distributor of income than individuals?
why not incentivize them invest it in the community via lower capital gains rates?
I won't argue with that, although I would argue that early on, income tax rates do play an important role. In addition, small businesses that form S-corps have to deal with ordinary income taxes.
What role? Early on businesses are not generating much profit, high marginal tax rates won't apply in the first place. Are you suggesting that someone is going to close up shop once they start making $250k/year because they have to be higher taxes on anything above $250k?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chopchop0
So you assume that the government is a better distributor of income than individuals?
Right, individuals usually don't willingly distribute their income. How many rich folks would willing give millions for social programs? Most wealth in this country is not wealthy because they are building businesses, etc, but rather because they are collecting rents on their capital/land. The majority of businesses are created by middle-class individuals. Contrary to popular belief most wealthy folks add very little value to society, they are simply collecting rents from their capital/land from productivity society.
Honestly, I would much rather the US implement a land-value tax and a passive-capital gain tax rather than an income tax. But that is not realistic, the best one can do with the current system is implement high marginal tax rates.
Wal-Mart and other big retailers are big beneficiaries of government social programs and tax policies. They even direct their new hires on how to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance. Companies pay higher unemployment insurance taxes if they have a higher turnover. If their employees are big users of public assistance, there should be some way for the government to recover its costs such as a higher payroll tax.
Right, individuals usually don't willingly distribute their income. How many rich folks would willing give millions for social programs? Most wealth in this country is not wealthy because they are building businesses, etc, but rather because they are collecting rents on their capital/land. The majority of businesses are created by middle-class individuals. Contrary to popular belief most wealthy folks add very little value to society, they are simply collecting rents from their capital/land from productivity society.
Honestly, I would much rather the US implement a land-value tax and a passive-capital gain tax rather than an income tax. But that is not realistic, the best one can do with the current system is implement high marginal tax rates.
Wow, somebody slap me, first time user_id says something I can agree with. I guess even a blind squirrel hits the tree and finds a nut once in a while.
Most wealth in this country is not wealthy because they are building businesses, etc, but rather because they are collecting rents on their capital/land.
Except that the wealthy are the biggest consumers in our consumer-driven economy....
The more wealth you leave in their hands, the more they will use it. Besides, the wealthy become that way by virtue of becoming the most efficient asset allocaters in the country (with the exception of the trust-fund babies and lotto winners and the movie star/athletes and such).
Wal-Mart and other big retailers are big beneficiaries of government social programs and tax policies. They even direct their new hires on how to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance. Companies pay higher unemployment insurance taxes if they have a higher turnover. If their employees are big users of public assistance, there should be some way for the government to recover its costs such as a higher payroll tax.
Wal-mart provides an entry-level source of labor like any other company. Are you telling me that people that work at Target or K-mart aren't going to take advantage of those same programs?
These jobs, by and large, are ENTRY-LEVEL, meaning they make good jobs for part-timers, seniors and teens, not for breadwinners. If you want a decent job, go out and work for it. The days of the overpaid GM UAW worker with a high school degree are over.
Honestly, I would much rather the US implement a land-value tax and a passive-capital gain tax rather than an income tax. But that is not realistic, the best one can do with the current system is implement high marginal tax rates.
I like Ralph Nader's idea of a tax on every financial buy-sell transaction. Let the manipulative day-traders and short-sellers pay for our economy It's probably one of the main things I agree with in his platform
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
